With Donald Trump eyeing a potential return to the White House in 2025, meteorologists and scientific experts are raising alarms about what another Trump administration could mean for America’s weather forecasting capabilities.
While forecasting the weather may seem apolitical, many scientists say political decisions can directly impact the accuracy, funding, and transparency of the country’s forecasting systems—and Trump’s track record has left them concerned.
At the heart of the debate is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which oversees weather satellites, storm predictions, climate data, and the National Weather Service (NWS). During his first term, Trump frequently clashed with NOAA officials, most infamously during the 2019 “Sharpiegate” incident.
After incorrectly stating that Hurricane Dorian would hit Alabama, Trump doubled down on the claim, even presenting a doctored weather map during a press conference. That moment, while absurd to some, reflected a deeper problem—political interference in scientific data and communication.
Now, as policy think tanks close to Trump prepare new strategies for reshaping the federal government, agencies like NOAA may face major overhauls if Trump returns to power. Scientists fear that budget cuts, leadership changes, and pressure to support political narratives over scientific facts could severely damage the U.S. forecasting infrastructure.
Forecasting Under Pressure: What’s at Stake?
Accurate weather forecasting is far more than a convenience. It’s essential for public safety, disaster preparedness, agriculture, transportation, and the economy. Whether it’s issuing tornado warnings in the Midwest, tracking hurricanes in the Gulf, or forecasting floods in California, the work of NOAA and the NWS saves lives and billions of dollars annually.
But experts warn that this vital system could be weakened by political interference and cost-cutting. During Trump’s presidency, his administration proposed deep budget cuts to NOAA nearly every year, including reductions in satellite programs, climate research, and weather modeling improvements.
While Congress rejected many of those cuts, a second term could embolden the administration to push harder, especially with greater influence over agency leadership.
“Weather doesn’t care about politics,” said Dr. Andrew Rosen, a meteorologist with over two decades of experience. “But if you starve the agencies that predict it or pressure them to change their data, you’re gambling with public safety.”
Privatization and Restricted Access?
Another looming concern is the potential privatization of parts of the National Weather Service. Conservative policy groups allied with Trump have previously suggested turning over some forecasting responsibilities to private weather firms. Proponents argue this could improve efficiency and reduce costs.
However, critics fear it would limit access to critical public data and create inequities in emergency warning systems.
Currently, NOAA and the NWS provide free, real-time information to the public, media, first responders, and local governments. If private companies gain more control, they may prioritize profit over public good, potentially restricting access to time-sensitive warnings or charging for services that are now freely available.
“Turning over forecasting to private interests would be a disaster, especially for underserved communities,” said Dr. Maria Kendall, a climate scientist based in Florida. “These systems are supposed to serve everyone equally—rich or poor, rural or urban.”
Replacing Experts With Loyalists?
One of the more troubling patterns observed during Trump’s first term was the replacement of career scientists with politically loyal appointees. In the wake of Sharpiegate, NOAA leaders faced internal pressure to back the President’s false claims.
An inspector general report later confirmed that NOAA officials had acted under “significant political pressure,” potentially violating scientific integrity policies.
The possibility of another term in which science is twisted to fit political agendas has many experts deeply uneasy.
“There’s a very real fear that scientific agencies could become mouthpieces for politics,” said Jeff Masters, co-founder of Weather Underground. “That’s when public trust erodes—and people stop listening to warnings that could save their lives.”
More Frequent Disasters, Less Accurate Warnings?
As climate change intensifies, the U.S. is experiencing more frequent and severe weather events—from wildfires and floods to hurricanes and droughts. In this context, experts argue that now is the worst possible time to defund, downsize, or politicize weather forecasting agencies.
According to the American Meteorological Society, the country’s forecasting systems are already under strain and need more—not less—investment. Delays in satellite deployment, outdated computer models, and staffing shortages at the National Weather Service all require attention and funding.
Yet, under Trump’s previous proposals, many of these critical components were slated for cuts.
“We are already falling behind Europe in terms of model accuracy,” said Rosen. “If we take another step backward under political pressure, we risk becoming less prepared for the disasters ahead.”
Conclusion: A Forecast for Uncertainty
As the 2024 election approaches, the future of America’s weather forecasting system may hinge on political outcomes. Trump’s first term included controversial clashes with scientists, proposed budget slashes to forecasting agencies, and attempts to reshape public communication of scientific information. Experts now worry that a second term could go even further.
While some argue that bureaucratic reforms are necessary to modernize government agencies, meteorologists and scientists stress that weather forecasting should remain grounded in data, transparency, and public service—not political agendas.
In an age of rising climate threats, any erosion of scientific integrity or weakening of forecasting systems could have dangerous consequences for millions of Americans.
For a closer look at how politics is affecting science and weather preparedness, visit Scientific American.
Disclaimer – Our team has carefully fact-checked this article to make sure it’s accurate and free from any misinformation. We’re dedicated to keeping our content honest and reliable for our readers.